Story Elements in RPGs...

[Drammattex]

It seems I'm permanently banned from giving Scribble XP. Which is probably a good thing. Don't want him going epic and getting godlike powers.

 

[Scribble]

I will definitely check out your blog. I also keep meaning to check out BSG, but something keeps coming up preventing me from watching.

 

[Drammattex]

Nevermind.

 

[The Shaman]

Eh... I would argue there is almost always a unifying theme that the other build towards. . . . Aside from that- do they include them, do you think just by default? The "Organic" mode?

I do, yes, by the choices the players and their characters make; as those choices are predicated to some extent by the game's rewards system and the setting, I think the themes of a particular campaign emerge from the synergy of those three elements.

I guess I'm wondering what would happen if people focused on them from the start.

To the extent that the players agree to play a particular game in a particular setting, they are tacitly building toward certain themes.

As far as sitting down at the table and saying, "This campaign we'll be exploring the theme of Heroism," I think there's definitely a segment of gamers who enjoy this very self-consciously literary style of play; I'm not one of them, however. I see no reason why such a game wouldn't work, but joining such a game holds no appeal for me.

Have you tried the other way?

No, because that's not what I'm looking for from playing a roleplaying game. What I enjoy about roleplaying games is what makes them different from storytelling media like books or movies.

I recently received one of the nicest compliments I've ever received from another gamer. After reading our adventure logs, he told me that my game wasn't like a story - rather, it was like "life itself." I really appreciated this, because that's what I strive for in my approach to running a game. The narrative of a life can only be seen in retrospect; for me, the experience of a great game results in something more like a biography than a story.

 

[Umbran]

Isn't that true with all aspects of the game though? As a DM I can set up an adventure, but ultimately it's up to the players if they want to partake.

Two things:

1) If the players decide to not go on a particular adventure, I have to improvise a single session's worth of material to cover the gap until I can find out where they really want to go, and prepare for that, specifically. If the players bomb out on an entire theme, that impacts all my future work.

2) A player may buy in to an adventure they aren't really thrilled about, because it is just one adventure. There'll be another adventure in a session or two or three. A player is less likely to accept an entire campaign theme that doesn't excite them, because that theme is going to be there in most of the sessions, inescapable for the life of the campaign.

Basically, for both the GM and the player, a campaign theme is a larger commitment than a single adventure.

I guess I' missing why if say the DM sets up the plot, Takhasis is trying to take over the world, and the players buy in with characters built around that adventure path, the DM can't also set up some themes that the players can also draw on?

Well, I don't usually start a campaign telling the players who the ultimate BBEG will be, or even if there will be one. I often enough don't know myself. I don't see too many cases of the players buying in to long-term plot details, so much as general situation or genre details.

When you are pitching a long-term plot, the themes are usually implied anyway, because long-term plot usually indicates genre, and genre typically implies themes.

Which, I think, just goes to suggest that if you want to run a particular theme, find a genre that does that theme well, and pitch that to the players. It would probably be more intuitive to most players, and avoid having to go into a discussion of what you mean by including "literary themes" in the game, and what that implies for play.

 

[Scribble]

Two things:

1) If the players decide to not go on a particular adventure, I have to improvise a single session's worth of material to cover the gap until I can find out where they really want to go, and prepare for that, specifically. If the players bomb out on an entire theme, that impacts all my future work.

What if you're running an adventure path or the like? Wouldn't that have the same implications?

Basically, for both the GM and the player, a campaign theme is a larger commitment than a single adventure.

But isn't this also the case for something like setting? If you're not into Dark Sun, then playing in a Dark Sun campaign is probably going to suck.

When you are pitching a long-term plot, the themes are usually implied anyway, because long-term plot usually indicates genre, and genre typically implies themes.

Which, I think, just goes to suggest that if you want to run a particular theme, find a genre that does that theme well, and pitch that to the players. It would probably be more intuitive to most players, and avoid having to go into a discussion of what you mean by including "literary themes" in the game, and what that implies for play.

Would you say the same about plot?

If I want to do a save the world style plot I should pick a certain Genre?

(I guess I was wrong to assume most people understood the basic concepts of literary themes?)



So to break it down further- what about on a per adventure basis?

Do any of you use or think about theme while writing adventures?

 

[Janx]

too many good points...

On BSG and Umbran's #2:
BSG did not have a planned story arc. the writers made stuff up season to season, story arc to story arc. This explains some of the What'sUpWithStarbuck moments...

I write my adventures 1 session at a time, generally as a complete "story" or cliffhanger. As a result, if I have a crappy hook that you still agreed to bite into, at the end of the session, I guage player desire/intent and that's what I base the next session on.

An AP planning to go from L1 to L20 is too risky to me. Too much assumption on what the players really want to do, as well as lock in on what its about. Writing each session from scratch, I can sense what themes would fit by my players and put it in there. This is also why they tend to bite my plot hooks, because I wrote them KNOWING my players and PCs immediate concerns.

Back to themes a bit. I suspect that concept is just a bit too abstract for me. I wouldn't want to run 20 levels of "why slavery is wrong" as a theme, and I can't envision a theme I could do that with.

In my Circle of Magic example (the legally required Mage's guild), all I did was present the card-carrying, goose-stepping member PC with a sympathetic NPC with a different viewpoint. The player could have gone either way in turning them in or helping them.

That was a cool moment, and total surprise to me. But I wouldn't want to run an entire campaign on that theme.

Which brings me to another trick I employ. The way I learned about Star Trek's plot model (back in creative writing class) was they used a 2 plot system. There was the threat/problem for the ship, and the threat/problem for a character. Sometimes they had parallels.

Forex, the Enterprise is trying to convince some colonists they need to evacuate, and Worf is related to one of the colonists and must deal with some personal issue with that person.

It was so formulaic that for LUG's ST:TNG RPG, I even made tables for generating adventures.

In D&D, this concept translates to: general problem/opportunity for the party (go explore the Dungeon of Disastrous Doom), and personal problems/opportunities (if you get enough money, you can pay the ransom to free your father).

 

[Janx]

I've just found when GMs try to control things like the pacing, try to frame things like a story, my character tends to become less important. I feel like I am there as a prop in the GMs story. By all means borrow cool elements from stories. You can take tropes, flavor, etc without railroading. I would just prefer the story emerge naturally during play.

I did a snip to get to the part I found intriguing.

As a GM, if I manipulate things to control pacing, does it really make your PC into a prop?

Or are there 2 kinds of pacing?

I the group is dawdling or is getting bored, and I bring in some event to spice it up, I'm controlling pacing. I believe this may be an acceptable practice. I'm keeping things lively when things slow down too much.

If I throw in 3 more random encounters because you're getting to the end too fast, this might not be an acceptable practice. I suspect there are some kinds of re-arranging that are too focused on an end result, rather than actual pacing.

My examples aren't necessarily any good. What I see is that as a GM, I might manipulate things so it makes more sense or keeps the fun up. And that's different than manipulating things to achieve some sort of narrative objective of the GM's.

 

[S'mon]

What are your thoughts overall on the idea of story in gaming?

There are story-creation role-playing games; D&D is not designed as such, though. I mostly find the idea of 'story' to be very harmful to what I want to get out of the game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My examples aren't necessarily any good. What I see is that as a GM, I might manipulate things so it makes more sense or keeps the fun up. And that's different than manipulating things to achieve some sort of narrative objective of the GM's.

I put the distinction slightly elsewhere. It is not so much your type of goal that matters or how you go about it, as how wedded you are to your goal being honored by the players.

As far as I'm concerned, good manipulation is from a DM is like a thermostat. Things are getting a little too cool. You can see attention wavering. So you dial the thermostat up a bit. Now, there are good chances (if the DM has any clue at all), that this will make it hot enough to cause a change in interest. And of course the DM had some idea what might happen when suddenly appearing are the Hated Man-eating Trolls of the Mucky Swamp at the Gates of the Home.

But perhaps the players are really enjoying talking to the mayor and want to do that for a bit more. A good DM sees that, gives them some more time, then edges up the thermostat another notch. A bad DM decides that they've had enough time, and skips the thermostat altogether, setting fire to the house in a way that can't be ignored.

Note, I'm not saying that the DM can't do extreme things. It is intent and paying attention to their reactions that matter. Extreme things because you think the players will enjoy them are good--even if those extreme things are narrative hooks that you think might get a bite. Extreme things because you want to control what they are doing are not. That's taking the hook and sticking it into their mouths. No bait for you!

So I don't have any problem with incremental adjustments that prod the players towards certain narrative objectives--especially if those objectives are consistent with what everyone knowingly and wilingly signed on for at the start of the campaign. Gonna have a campaign about eventually slaying the great dragon that embodies a theme of extreme greed--then eventually ya gots to put the dragon on stage in all his greedy glory. The incremental adjustments are what let you do this while still leaving the ultimate control in the players' hands.